so and remove the cloud of suspicion that's been over the president's head. and the same would be true with the mueller investigation. lou: pat, i'm with you 100% as usual. thanks for being with us. judge napolitano: i'm judge andrew napolitano in for kennedy. the president visits las vegas to comfort the victims of sunday night tragedy. the battle rages over what to do about the iran deal. convicted congressman michael brim wants his seat back on capitol hill. all that and more tonight on "kennedy." here we go again. the united states has been rattled to the core by an unspeakable act of evil by a
hater of humanity. but the terrible massacre in las vegas forces to us confront an uncomfortable reality. the government cannot keep us safe. this is not a novel or arcane observation. but a rational conclusion from knowing history and observing everyday life. in europe where the right to keep and bear arms is nonexistent, killers strike with bombs and knife and trucks. in america people use guns and only stop when they themselves are stopped by law abiding civilians using their own guns or by the police. this exquisite constitutional violation actually results in too much information for the feds to examine in a timely manner. this leaves us in a very precarious position today. the government cannot keep us safe and it claims it can. it wants to interfere with our
natural rights to self-defense. in whatever arena it keeps us less safe and falsely fosters the impression we are safe, we become less free. this week's mass shooting in las vegas caused emotional debate over the true meaning of the second amendment. should we even be balancing or reconciling them? joining me now to discuss is former cia officer and president of diligence, llc, and my long-time friend mike barrack. should the relationship between liberty and security be a balance or a bias in favor of liberty? >> we are always trying to find that point on the curve between the liberty and security.
typically what happens after an incident like this, that pendulum swings towards security. people are willing to give something up in the short term. that's natural. it's the correct human response. but the answer to your question. we should always favor the liberty side of things. that might surprise you given my background. judge napolitano: your background is risking your life when you were with the cia. >> i don't disagree with the idea that mass surveillance and layering on more government regulation, all those things, no. that's the knee jerk regulation. judge napolitano: the government doesn't get to the bad stuff until after the crimes occur. boston, sandy hook, they all talked on email and all texted and we didn't learn the stuff
until after the emails. >> i'm focused on is it operationally efficient? if you have surveillance on targets, identified targets or support cells for a terrorist organization it's efficient. if you are just gathering it up and hoping you will find something that might be of use at some point in time, no, that's wrong, and i look at it from an operational perspective. it's not efficient. judge napolitano: you want more gun control. the right to self-defense is a natural right and the government can't legislate it away. the supreme court says you can carry a gun with the same technological efficiency as what the bad guys carry. >> having last year having done an ad for the nra, i'm fairly
predictable on where i stand. but i understand the other side's emotion. emotion and sincerity don't change facts and they don't create good evidence for an argument they may have. but i look at this and think, at some point we could have a reasoned argument about some of the issues. not should we take your guns away or ban these kinds of weapons. judge napolitano: should we take the kits away that turn a semi-automatic into an automatic. >> this thing that's become a popular term, the bump stock issue. using a recoil in a weapon to accelerate the discharge of the round. that can be done without the kit. so you take the kit away, people can do that. maybe there is something with the idea of the numbers. if he did as the atf indicated
by 33 weapons in the space of 3 to 5 months. does that signal another background investigation? >> we live in a free society as i will define you can come and go as you see fit. is a free society condemned to tolerating this type of killing foreverb? >> i think society is condemned to living with evil. we are not going to regulate evil out of the human race. so i guess that's possibly an answer to your question. but, you know, banning weapons, we have 300 million weapons floating around this country. suddenly banning weapons, it's going to be impossible, and you are not going to stop bad things. we want a risk-free society. i don't know how we got to this point. but we are not going to get it.
judge napolitano: the president visited with doctors and first responders in las vegas and thanked them for their bravery in the face of unthinkable danger. doctors treated more than 500 victims in the shooting in las vegas. the suspect also killed 58 people before killing himself. bre peyton and richard fowler and comedian and my good friend and host of "part of the problem" podcast, dave smith. how did the president do with wrapping his arms around people? >> i thinked the remarks he made was on point. so that's good. the question now becomes is how do we as a country turn the corner from another mass shooting. this is the second one i want to say this year that we have seen.
judge napolitano: is donald trump good at soothing the country when these crises have hit whether it's a hurricane or mass slaughter. >> it's been interesting to see a more empathetic side of him come out in some of these visits with the victims. remarks he made earlier this week in the initial face of tragedy i think we are spot-on. human beings are sinful and we are capable of greatness and also evil. i thought that was spot-on. judge napolitano: is evil always going to be with us because we have an open society. >> in a closed so evil is present also. there is something about this incident that is so horrific it kind of tends to unite the 99.9% that this is so horrific.
judge napolitano: please mention the second amendment in your argument. >> i think this is a larger conversation than gun control. the question we have to ask ourselves is this. at some point in time an individual who can outgun the police. this is the second time this year both the shooting with members of congress and this shooting in las vegas. we saw an individual who is crazy. a maniac who outgunned police. that's what's scary to me. we can have a conversation about what policies would or wouldn't have worked. but when you have somebody who has more bullets than our police or law enforcement. that should cause a pause in the americans' minds. he amassed 43 weapons, that's a scary thought. my brother is a gun owner. i'm saying for my brother and the good gun owners. we have to get rid of the bad gun owners. judge napolitano: if the right
to self-defense is a natural prepolitical which is what the court called it. how can we not interfere with that right richard is talking about. >> getting into the weeds and talking about specific policy issues would be helpful. background checks that gun controllers have been trying to impose. >> for all the talk about gun control. you can put the challenge out there and nobody here is going to meet it. you tell me the regulation that would have avoided this shooting. let's wait a couple weeks. people want to obsess over how many guns he has it seems he -- seems it didn't play a major role in this. >> if he was on the terrorist
watchlist or a member of al qaeda or had taken a trip to saudi arabia. he would have been caught for the number of guns he bought. he would have been flagged. so that raises a red flag that he wasn't caught. that's problematic. judge napolitano: to richard's points. all these guns were licensed and lawfully purchased. doesn't that set off a red flag in somebody's mind in the government? >> i don't -- there has been a lot of conversations about the number of guns. i don't think it many that weird to buy a lot of guns and decide that's a hobby. it's not an unusual thing. so i think a lot of the conversation that we have had was thinking about the fact that he was of a certain background and able to get away with it a
little bit. i think the conversation has been divisive. judge napolitano: the president has put wall street on edge over a simple comment he made about puerto rico. hurricane maria did tens of millions to an island community that is already in debt. the president said maybe puerto rico shouldn't have to repay the money. >> they owe a lot of money to your friends on wall street. we'll have to wipe that out. you can say good-bye to that. i don't know if it's goldman sachs. but however it is, you will have to say good-bye to that. judge napolitano: it's a long way from what he said object the campaign trail when he was asked if the u.s. should bail out puerto rico. he said i don't believe they should. and puerto rico is better off if they don't because they will cut the bonds way down.
they have far too sphch debt. the problem with puerto rico, they have far, far too much debt. the question now, can the president make such a suggestion and what would the ramifications be? what does he mean by wipe out the debt? does he mean federal dollars to pay the bond hold hers or let the bondholders take their worthless paper and put it in the fire lace? >> we don't know. 10% of it is held by private individuals. a couple years ago congress said let's renegotiate the way this debt is being structured. they said let's start doing this on an individual consensual basis and those discussions got pushed to the court. what donald trump could be saying is let's push this away from the court.
judge napolitano: was he careless with his language which caused the bond markets to fluctuate. what does that mean, wine out the debt. >> he was careless and irresponsible with his language. the debt of the puerto rican government has nothing to do with the people in puerto rico suffering. when the president brought this up at the beginning of this crisis, i was taken aback. the fact that people don't have water and the fact patients aren't getting their dialysis treatment. judge napolitano: you are talking post hurricane. >> and people aren't getting enough water has nothing to do with the fact that people aren't getting enough water. judge napolitano: geraldo did an unbelievable job. in highlighting and spotlighting grievous federal failures in delivering services to pr -- to
puerto rico. is puerto rico's debt a federal problem? >> technically speaking it's not. judge napolitano: should the president of the united states be getting involved? >> on two levels. he shouldn't. and as you say during a hurricane relief may not be the time to take on a debt issue. but it's funny that you represent the federal government overseeing this $20 trillion in debt and under funded liabilities. and saying to puerto rico, get your act together. judge napolitano: the panel will return a little later. but first should state and local taxes continue to be deductible from federal income taxes? that's the debate as the party tries to unite under one tax reform plan. chris stirewalt joins me to
[ glass shatters ] property damage? that's what general liability's for. what?! -injured employee? -ow. workers' comp helps you pay for a replacement. what's happening? this is carla. how's it going? and if anything comes up, our experts are standing by. ♪ boo! ♪ i even accept i have a higher risk of stroke as far as i used to. due to afib, a type of irregular heartbeat not caused by a heart valve problem. but no matter where i ride,
i go for my best. so if there's something better than warfarin, i'll go for that too. eliquis. eliquis reduced the risk of stroke better than warfarin, plus had less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis had both. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... ...and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. i'm still going for my best. and for eliquis. ask your doctor about eliquis. ♪
judge napolitano: the gop can't get anything on on healthcare because of interparty fighting and the same seems to be happening with tax reform. the deductions overstate taxes have been said to be an unfair subsidy. but there are politicians in california, new jersey and new york who are opposed to repealing these state and local deductions baits would mean their folks ultimately pay a lot more to the government which would result in a certain voter backlash. can the republicans get their act together and agree on a tax reform plan? do the republicans care what taxes the people in new jersey,
new york, illinois, california, who haven't voted for a republican president since ronald reagan. >> we have a showstles keptives to represent the people, a senate to represent the states, and a president who represents everybody. the house is supposed to fight for the interests of the people in their districts. that's what the framers gave them. that's their duty. if you are a republican in new jersey and somebody says we have a great way to couple with a trillion and a half dollars in revenue that we need to balance this tax plan out and that is to take away the deductions of the people in your state that they are paying on their high state and local taxes, so obviously they are not going to be down with a plan that means their constituents foot the bill. judge napolitano: is this plan in trouble for the reasons you
just articulated? and if they get rid of what the president wants, the no deductions on your adjusted gross income for the local taxes you pay, won't they put this plan in the hole? won't it cost more money than it is saving? >> which they can't do. the rules of the senate says if you want to payments as a budgetary measure it has to be neutral over a 10-year window it's a stupid rule. they are trying to meet arbitrary numbers instead doing things in a straightforward way. judge napolitano: so the people listening to us understand this is critical for passage in the senate. if this thing does cost the government money, you need 60 votes in the senate which needs 8 democrats to pass it. >> the president might be able to pick off two or three vulnerable democrats from red states like joe manchin but it
will be hard to goat rest of the way. i would say the largest threat to this legislation is the fact that rand paul, the senator from kentucky, the guy who had a lot to do with the health insurance package. he said he didn't like it. he thinks this is not a conservative tax plan. he thinks it's a bunch of gimmickry. but it's about shifting the burden around. judge napolitano: let's go to the other side of the capitol. the 33 fiscal conservatives in the republican majority who don't like to do anything that increases the deficit. what will they do if they believe this is not revenue neutral? >> the republicans have to as a critical component of this, sell their tax plan on the basis of economic growth. not deficit reduction.
mick mulvaney said if stu want three, four or more percent growth, there is going to be deficit spending at the beginning. only way republicans have any hope of getting this passed is by selling it as a growth measure. when that happens people can engage in a lot of valuable self-deception. they are saying it will work out in the end. judge napolitano: self-deception is the coin of the realm. how bad would it be for the republican president and congressional leadership if no tax reform is passed in 2017. >> depends on whether the economy of is growing. if the economy keeps growing at this pace and veal household income keeps up it's probably not a disaster. if they fail to pass tax cuts and the economy turns south. judge napolitano: got it.
see you tomorrow in d.c. coming up. president trump pledged to dump the iran nuclear deal. but some republicans including a prominent general in his administration warns withdrawing from the deal could make matters worse. should the president follow through on his campaign promise? i will ask former ambassador john bolton next. why should over two hundred years of citi history matter to you? well, because it tells us something powerful about progress: that whether times are good or bad, people and their ideas will continue to move the world forward. as long as they have someone to believe in them. citi financed the transatlantic cable that connected continents.
and the panama canal, that made our world a smaller place. we backed the marshall plan that helped europe regain its strength. and pioneered the atm, for cash, anytime. for over two centuries we've supported dreams like these. and the people and companies behind them. so why should that matter to you? because, today, we are still helping progress makers turn their ideas into reality. and the next great idea could be yours.
judge napolitano: president trump has just 10 days to decide whether to deliver on his campaign promise to pull out of the iran nuclear deal. general hr mcmaster defended the president's criticism of the deal having called the deal fundamentally flawed. which approach is most of likely to prevents iran from becoming a nuclear threat. joining me to discuss, ambassador john bolton. what advice would you give the president if he called you up tomorrow and said what should i do? >> i would urge him to get out
of the iran deal completely. i think it's important to cut cleanly and get away from it. i don't think this deal is hindering iran's ability to continue on is delivery development and ballistic missiles. i think when we look at north korea as well and the possible cooperation between the two we shouldn't get lost in the weeds. we shouldn't try to cute by half approach. america benefits from strong, clear, decisive leadership. he should just get out of it. judge napolitano: why do you think general mattis said stay in or at least keep one toe in the water? >> he didn't elaborate on his testimony this week.
he said he thought it was important to stay in the deal because america should keep its word. i certainly agree there is a value in america's reputation being able to say we honor our words. but it's also the case that when a treaty is outdated, it's the responsibility of the president to get us out of it. whether committed to it two years ago or 20 years ago. that's what president george w. bush did when we withdrew from the 1972 antiballistic miss soil treaty. judge napolitano: how do you address the argument that anything that slows down iran in their nuclear ability is a good thing? >> i don't think the evidence is there that this agreement is slowing them down? i know every concession they
made on the nuclear side is trivial and reversible. the head their atomic energy association said a few weeks ago they can get back to their previous enrichment levels in a matter of five days if they got out of the deal. judge napolitano: have we ever gone through a period in modern american history where international agreements of much consequence were changed? what does that do for american credibility. >> i think this particular deal is so bad. i believe it's the worst deal in american diplomatic history. i don't think our credibility will suffer. i think it's important for america to be clear way it's trying to do to stop nuclear proliferation. we already have the north korea crisis upon us. to decertify but stay in the deal is completely incoherent.
the certification requires the president to say the deal is in the national interests of america. and he doesn't believe that. judge napolitano: thank you, ambassador bolton. is it in president trump's best political interest to stay in a deal he has repeatedly called quote the worst deal ever in the party panel has returned. what does this do to our international reputation? >> i think it harms our diplomatic reputation. i don't think you can look at the iran deal in a vacuum. you have north korea which is the kid who wants to play around with his nuclear weapons. if iran is the on counter measure we have, if you have north korea playing with a
nuclear weapon and the thought of iran doing the same thing, that's very scary idea. judge napolitano: can he do a halfway measure to try to satisfy the elites in the state department and reinforce john bolton's argument? >> i think it's an interesting argument. i think mattis' testimony was interesting when he was fighting for the deal and saying we should stick to it because it seems like iran is keeping up with their end of the bargain. but the fact of the matter is we don't know if they are keeping up with their end of the bargain because we are not allowed to inspect their nuclear facilities. it assumes a lot of things. it assumes iran will keep their word and be totally honest and we know they don't. judge napolitano: isn't the development of nuclear weaponry
inevitable? aren't we shoveling against the tide? >> i don't know why iran when they were put on the list of three evil countries would want a nuclear weapon. when you hear people like john bolton, they don't look at the big blunder of the iraq war and the hundreds of,000 of people dead and the nation destroyed. the fact that he made a deal with iran that didn't bring us closer to war that bolton and others wanted forward decades. we can't afford a war with iran. and many people around trump want one. judge napolitano: can the president pardon people in the russia probe before they are charged. does his case have a solid legal
foundation? legal insiders take this as a sure sign mueller believes the president will test his own pardoning powers when it comes to pardoning his associates. but there is a very limited pes dense for doing so. it's barred from being applicable to state crimes and impeachment but how does it pertain to charges that haven't been filed yet. what will moderate republicans do if the president starts pardoning jared kushner, paul manafort, michael flynn. >> moderate republicans have taken every chance to jump on the president. i think they would see this as their ticket to do so. i think mueller exploring this
is a power move on his part. i think someone has read the art of the deal and he has to think four steps ahead and bring out the big beguns. >> are independent counselors dangerous to democracy or authoritarians? >> anybody they get sic:ced on. judge napolitano: should they exist? >> i guess i'm kind of torn. there should be something holding presidents accountable. there is less and less. you wrote a book on this. there has been more executive power consolidated in the last few decades. judge napolitano: do the democrats want to impeach him? >> i think we need to let this
investigation take its course. what's interesting for mueller, he's four steps ahead. the other thing you see mueller doing is pardoning with states attorneys general. if trump were in the case there is indictment, there is also going to be state indictments with federal indictments. you can pardon some but you can't pardon them all. judge napolitano: what will chuck and nancy do if the president pardons himself? what would they do? >> they are not in the majority in either house. so it's a question of what will paul ryan and mitch mcconnell do. will paul ryan and mitch mcconnell have the spine to stand up to donald trump? we haven't seen them stand up to donald trump in the past. judge napolitano: does he have diehard republicans who will stick with him no matter what he
does with the pardoning? >> that's a great question. when the billy bush thing came out it was interesting to see which republicans turned against him. those who didn't won't do it now. judge napolitano: former new york congressman michael grimmm sent times in federal prison for tax fraud. he now wants his job back. he joins us after the break to tell us why. liberty mutual saved us almost eight hundred dollars when we switched our auto and home insurance. liberty did what? yeah, they saved us a ton, which gave us a little wiggle room in our budget. wish our insurance did that. then we could get a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey, welcome back. this guy... right? yes. ellen. that's my robe. you could save seven hundred eighty two dollars
judge napolitano: the former republican congressman who went to prison for tax evasion wants back his old seat because he says he wants to help president trump drain the swamp. he was elected in 2010 to represent staten island and brooklyn. he was known for his hard-nosed style and once had a heated run-in with a reporter when asked about his campaign finances. he pled guilty to a single count of felony tax fraud and spent a year in jail. he's annex marine, ex-fbi,
ex-businessman, and ex-con. welcome back. >> thanks for having me. judge napolitano: why would anybody vote for you with your criminal record when you are looking to unseat a conservative republican who votes just the way president trump would happily want him to vote? >> i have to reject premise of that question. my opponent is not a conservative republican. he voted against the healthcare reform. he voted against sanctuary cities. so the idea he's conservative is false. but i think the main reason why my constituents would vote for me, they know that it was a political witch hunt. that what i did was wrong. by the was a civil matter. i was the first and only restaurant owner in the history of new york city to be criminally charged to have delivery boys off the books. that's what this stems from. from having a handful of
delivery boys off the books which has always been a civil fine for everyone except a republican congressman. judge napolitano: did you in fact do what you pleaded guilty to doing in federal court in new york city. >> yes. 100% i was absolutely targeted by the obama justice department. they went on a witch hunt. and what did they find? they found a handful of delivery boys at any hadn't restaurant where i was a minority owner with two partners. there are over 10,000 cases on the books and all of them were civil fines by the department of labor. judge napolitano: the other restaurant owners who paid the civil fines are not running for congress. how do you confront this on the campaign trail, the stigma of
having spent 7 years in a federal prison as a known former fbi agent in the presence of many people who are sent there by your former colleagues. >> i just want to correct you. you said years instead of 7 months. it was 7 months and it was horrible. but i think people are more upset with the fact that it was targeted for a civil matter and it was turned corruptly into a criminal matter. you are a judge. you know that. everyone should be treated the same under the law. no one should be singled out because later in life they become a congressman. this happened years before i was in congress. i was not in office. i was not a united states marine active duty at the time. judge napolitano: how will you address the confrontation that you had with a new york 1 reporter. a young reporter asked you about campaign finances and here is
how you responded. so you know that your opponents are going to have this video of you threatening to break a reporter in half or throw him over a balcony if he asked you a question. how do you confront and explain that? >> exactly like i did in high last election. i was re-elected after that video took place by 12.5 points. what michael grimm is real and human he's possible of making mistakes. of course, i regret that. i was emotional. it was a tough day. and i let my emotions get ahead of me. that's the only time that happened in over five years of dealing with the press and i regret it. i think the people in staten and brooklyn understand.
judge napolitano: the following five stories were picked up by kennedy's staff. from the looks of things they watched the game in a bar. topic one. speak of the yankees, congratulations are in order for the rookie aaron judge who had the top-selling jersey in major league baseball. last night he hit another home run during the wildcard win over the smoat twins. of course, the yankees aren't the only new york baseball team making news. the mets starting next season, all tickets will cost $10 to get in and $50 to get out. if you ask me, that's a bargain. topic two.
steven seagal is about to face a countertop grilling tycoon. george foreman challenged him to a fight. they have gotten sponsors from life alert, metimucil. topic three. federal mortgage lender fannie mae is accused of spending $30 million taxpayer dollars on their new office in washington, d.c. the inspector general claims fannie mae executives spent $250,000 on a slapped here. $500,000 for a gypsum ceiling detailing and $250,000 for a
glass walkway. it's not tore me to say whether they made frivolous purchases. but they were too busy trying out their water slide and continues hear them over their dj in the lobby. topic three. they are going to try to get babe dwrois not cry on airlines. they have enlisted the help of 34 families to find ways to get babies through takeoff and landing without crying. the company is working on a way to get democrats to stop crying about the election. they haven't had any luck with that one but we are firing their success.
topic five. the new england patriots figured out a way to fly without listening to crying babies. the boeing 767 is so big they can fly the entire team in first class. including the guys who deflate the football. but listen to this one. the cleveland browns purchased a ford taurus station wagon to shuttle their team back from practice and games. it's easy to think that all money managers are pretty much the same. but while some push high commission investment products,
fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.
thisto a hilarioushing baudiobook on audible.g and this woman is laughing because she's pretending her boss's terrible story is funny. still actually laughing. no longer making a human noise. experience the comedy, not your commute. dial star-star-audible on your smartphone to start listening today.
kennedyfbn. i'm judge andrew napolitano defending freedom in new york. good night, america. >> they're cars you never heard of. >> he liked to buy unique cars -- kissels, grahams, overlands. he always used to say, "i don't want to meet myself on the road." >> it's a great hobby. keeps you out of the beer joints. >> do you have your foot on the brake, teacher? just in case? >> i haven't jumped out yet. >> these heirs hit a fork in the road... >> so that is a point of contention. do you donate cars here? do you have an auction? >> it's really tough to get every sibling on the same page. >> yeah, i'd say we're no different. >> ...until they hear an emotional voice from the past. >> when we go by his gravesite, he's probably on high spin mode up there. >> it's just money. can't take it with you.